David Von Pein

Oh, you mean the several gunmen who equalled or bettered Oswald's performance while firing a Carcano at a moving target in 1967? Still think Oswald's "feat" was impossible? (Let me guess -- Those tests don't count because they were conducted by CBS.)

Sure, Oswald missed with his first shot. But according to people like DiEugenio and Groden, the supposedly "pro" assassins missed with a whole bunch of shots. (Groden's latest count was up to 15 gunshots, btw, as of April 2011.) At least Oswald's batting average was .667. But if we're to believe Oliver Stone, the "professional" killers only managed a .500 average (3 hits on JFK out of 6 shots), with two complete misses of the limo. Some pros.

What a weak and crappy batch of conspiratorial proof. And, if any of the above junk was actually true, what a worthless gang of Presidential assassins you had there in Dealey Plaza that day. Were all of the shooters blindfolded, Jimbo? Is that why there are so many bullet strikes in the grass and in the street that apparently didn't come within a country mile of hitting their target? Geez.

I have, and I discuss those opposite-angle photos here.

But it sure as heck makes the SBT much more likely to be true (particularly when we factor in the common-sense observation of John Connally ALSO having been hit by a rifle bullet in his UPPER BACK at just about the exact same time that Kennedy was being hit by one). Can you deny the logic of my last statement, James? If you do deny or sidestep its built-in garden-variety logic, then maybe Occam should pay you a visit and show you his Razor. It doesn't have to mean it's the answer...but, as I just said above, the lack of ANY bullets (or even fragments of bullets) in JFK's upper body sure as heck makes it much more likely that one single bullet tore through JFK's body, leaving behind very little damage and leaving behind, of course, no bullets at all. In fact, the #1 factor for Arlen Specter (as he has said in televised interviews) in arriving at a single-bullet conclusion was that same troublesome fact that CTers have no reasonable or logical answer for -- there were no bullets in Kennedy's body. It stands to reason, therefore, that one single bullet passed cleanly through the President's upper back and neck, exiting his throat. And when you then factor in the Connally back wound, the math becomes even simpler. Connally was sitting in a direct line to accept any bullet that would have exited JFK's throat. Given these variables, where can logic take a reasonable person? Should it take me to MULTIPLE DISAPPEARING BULLETS hitting Kennedy from opposite directions -- even though I know that CONNALLY too was struck in his UPPER BACK with a bullet at nearly the very same instant on Elm Street? Or should logic take me in the direction where Dr. Cyril Wecht has travelled -- i.e., the bullet does go through Kennedy, but it totally misses Connally (and the limo). And Wecht purports such a theory even though he knows full well that the man sitting almost directly in front of John F. Kennedy also sustained a bullet wound to his upper back at an almost identical point in time in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. I mean, come on. Let's be sensible. (That is allowed in a SBT debate, isn't it?) But I have far more criticisms of any "anti-SBT" theory that might be used to substitute for the SBT. Any anti-SBT theory must contain several aspects that are So Close, But Not Quite Close Enough to the SBT. E.G.: 1.) The wounds on JFK's body in any anti-SBT theory are Close, but not close enough to where the wounds are really located in JFK's upper body (per the autopsy pictures and the Boswell Face Sheet measurements and in Commission Exhibit No. 903). 2.) John Connally is positioned Close, but not close enough to the position he needs to be in to make the SBT work. (CTers like Tony Marsh like to micro-analyze this aspect of their anti-SBT theory down to the exact number of inches, practically centimeters, that separated JFK & JBC, as if that figure can be established with 100% accuracy; it cannot be established with pinpoint precision, which is something I've always said since the first day I ever started talking about the JFK case on the Internet.) 3.) The reactions we see exhibited by JFK and Connally in the Zapruder Film are Close, but not close enough to support the notion that both men were reacting to severe external stimulus at the very same time. In the final analysis, it is my opinion that the Single-Bullet Theory is (to quote my favorite author, Vincent Bugliosi): "So obvious that a child could author it." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 302 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Follow-Up to my last post..... I have what I think is a sensible and logical question for conspiracy theorists here who do not believe in the Single-Bullet Theory (which is almost everyone here, of course): If the SBT is wrong (and particularly in the case of the theories which have JFK hit by TWO separate bullets to replace the one bullet of the SBT), then how can you account for those TWO bullets not hitting any bony structures or the lungs of President Kennedy, and yet STILL those two bullets inexplicably stopped inside JFK's back/neck? James, You DO accept the autopsy report with respect to the lungs and the pleura cavity and all "bony structures" not being struck directly by any bullet that passed through JFK's upper body....do you not? Or do you really think that JFK's lung was hit by a bullet on Nov. 22nd? Did the autopsists lie about that? The reason I'm stressing this question again is to get back to this basic fact (whether you believe in the SBT or not): The bullet (or bullets) that struck JFK in the upper back and neck areas did not produce any significant damage to the areas of the body that conspiracy theorists think would have had to sustain such damage if the SBT is true. Which means, of course, that whatever bullets DID go into JFK's back and neck on 11/22 also did not produce any significant damage to Kennedy's lungs or ribs or other bony structures in his body. Which means that the anti-SBT conspiracists are left with this conundrum (not even factoring in the wounds to Governor Connally): Two bullet wounds in JFK's body (back and throat)....no bullets in his body to account for either wound....and no significant "bony" or "lung" damage which could possibly account for the stoppage of the bullet(s) that entered the body of John Kennedy. Don't conspiracy theorists ever give some serious thought to the "conundrum" I just stated above?

Thank you James Gordon, and thank you, Pat Speer, for your most recent replies. As for Cliff Varnell's theories about the shirt and coat -- well, his theories are easily debunked by applying just a small dose of regular ol' common sense (which is true of most conspiracy theories, when you come to think about it), such as this. In the time since my original post a few years ago on CE903 (and since I wrote the caption to the photo below), I've added some addendums to my "CE903" pages, which I think are important addendums to understanding some of the limitations that the Warren Commission was restricted to when it came to its re-creation of the assassination on 5/24/64 and its built-in restrictions concerning CE903 (particularly in Part 3 below): http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903-part-2.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3.html

Mark (and Mr. Gordon), The obvious answer to your elaborate charts and analysis is this: The bullet which struck JFK in the upper back on 11/22/63 did not strike any bony structures or lungs inside the President's body. That is an ironclad fact that even one of "your own" -- Cyril Wecht -- agrees with 100%. And the autopsy report and all three autopsy surgeons (who each signed-off on that autopsy report written by Dr. Humes) confirm the above fact as well. And whether you believe ONE or TWO (or 22) bullets struck JFK in Dealey Plaza, the above fact will still be true -- no bony structures or lungs in JFK's back and neck regions were struck by any bullets.* * = And the damaged trachea is obviously not considered a "bony structure". It's a cartilaginous structure. But, amazingly, even Dr. Wecht, in June 2007, insisted that "no cartilaginous structure" was even struck by the bullet that he does think went clean through JFK, exiting the throat. But--somehow--Wecht insists that that bullet missed Governor Connally. ... And the damaged vertebra wasn't actually struck by the bullet either. The HSCA concluded that the passage of the single bullet near the vertebra is what caused the damage to the vertebra. We know where the bullet entered JFK's back (5.5 in. below the mastoid). We know where the bullet exited (as confirmed by autopsy photos). And this photo proves for all time (IMO) that the HSCA was wrong about the throat wound being anatomically higher than the back wound: Therefore, given the above known facts about JFK's wounds and the lack of internal damage, where do conspiracy theorists think they can go with this information to support some murky and unproven theory about multiple gunmen and/or some type of "anti-SBT" theory? Regardless of whether the SBT is true or not, the above facts I stated about JFK's wounds (and the lack of any substantial damage inside Kennedy's back and neck which could have possibly accounted for the stoppage of any bullet--let alone TWO separate bullets) will still be the facts. So where do you anti-SBT guys want to go with these facts? Did Humes lie about pretty much everything? Is the autopsy report a total fraud? Are the autopsy photos supposedly "fakes"? Are the X-rays also frauds and forgeries? Was the HSCA a complete sham regarding the SBT? Were the HSCA investigators and FPP members all liars too? Or were they just too stupid to know they were being "misled" about some things (as Pat Speer postulated)? Spell out your theory that replaces the SBT. HOW did it happen? And where was that frontal shooter located that could have possibly accounted for the throat wound being an "entry" wound (as almost all Internet CTers believe)? It would be nice if a CTer could provide at least some solid evidence to back up a valid, workable, and (above all) reasonable "anti-SBT" theory. To date, I've never seen such a theory. And I doubt one will ever be forthcoming. Most CTers will say, in return: Well, why can't you provide some solid evidence that the SBT is true? I, however, think that has been done. Many times over, in fact. Starting with the autopsy report, then the WC's re-creation in Dealey on 5/24/64, then Dr. Lattimer's tests which support the general workings of the SBT in the 1970s, then the HSCA's work in the late '70s (although, as mentioned, I do disagree with some points the HSCA & FPP made--like the silly Z190 SBT timeline and the "throat wound is higher" conclusion, but they utilized some common sense in concluding--in general--that ONE BULLET definitely did strike both Kennedy and Connally), and then the FAA simulation, and then Dale Myers' exacting computer work. All of the above things provide good, solid underpinnings for the validity of the Single-Bullet Theory. Are they ALL dead wrong? From the WC, to the HSCA, to Lattimer, to FAA, to Myers? If the CTers think they are all wrong, I beg to differ. Addendum Re: Perry---- And the main reason I posted Dr. Malcolm Perry's "It could have been either" WC testimony was, quite obviously, to counter this wholly inaccurate statement made by James DiEugenio: "And no one will ever impeach Dr. Perry on this." Fact is, of course, that Dr. Perry himself pretty much impeached his initial 11/22/63 statement about the throat wound being one of entrance. And he did so by admitting to the Warren Commission that the throat wound could have been "either" an entry or an exit.

DiEugenio's tirades get funnier every day. I especially love this one from ol' Jimbo (which means he's got to endorse the absurd theory that TWO bullets--not just one--disappeared off the planet after entering JFK's upper back and neck): Jim's a howl. Jimbo, naturally, totally ignores this testimony of Dr. Perry: Mr. SPECTER - Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound? Dr. PERRY - It could have been either. The above testimony was uttered, of course, after Perry had been coerced into lying his butt off in front of the WC, right Jimbo? DiEugenio acts as if I'm the only person on the planet who believes in the SBT. You're really strange, Jimmy.

Fair enough. You opt to disbelieve both U.S. Government inquiries which both endorsed the SBT as the truth (the WC and the HSCA). I don't choose that option.

Well, something has got to be right if the SBT is so wrong. Those two men (JFK & JBC) were both hit in their respective upper backs with a rifle bullet at just about the very same time on Nov. 22. And Governor Connally was seated in the perfect spot (or very close) to be hit by the same bullet that would have exited from JFK's throat. And we know that no bullets were found inside JFK's body. The dots seem pretty simple to connect. (Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, I guess.)

Okay, Pat: If the SBT isn't correct, then tell us what the most reasonable explanation is to explain the wounds in both JFK & JBC, and the total lack of bullets in the body of President Kennedy? Key words: "Most reasonable explanation". I'd like to see if your explanation is more "reasonable" than the SBT.

A quick checklist of SBT facts: 1.) The upper lobe of JFK's right lung was bruised by the passage of a bullet. That's a concrete fact. But the lung was not penetrated. Nor was the pleura cavity. It was only bruised by the passage of the missile as well. What caused the bruising of these areas in JFK's body if it wasn't the passage of ONE single high-speed bullet traversing the tissues of his upper body? 2.) JFK had a bullet entry hole in his upper back (with an abrasion collar) located 14 cm. below the tip of his right mastoid process. 3.) JFK had a bullet hole of exit in the lower portion of his throat (per the autopsy report and per Dr. Humes, a point on which he never wavered, as far as I am aware). 4.) No bullets were found in JFK's body at his autopsy. 5.) John Connally had a wound of entry in the upper-right part of his back. 6.) The Zapruder Film shows JFK and JBC reacting at virtually an identical time to external stimulus (as indicated nicely by the toggling Z-Film clip below). What is causing the distressed look on John Connally's face at Z225-Z226 if he hasn't yet been hit by a bullet? And, even more importantly, what is causing Connally's right arm to fly up into the air at exactly the same time JFK's right arm is heading northward at Z226 if it wasn't a rifle bullet? Given the above facts, tell me again how the SBT is an impossibility. The Single-Bullet Theory is by far the most logical scenario to explain the victims' wounds. Any other scenario raises far more questions and leaves many more things unresolved than does the SBT -- beginning with the $64,000 question that no conspiracist has ever been able to logically answer (and they never will) -- If JFK was really hit by separate bullets in the back AND throat, then where did those two bullets go after entering (but never exiting) his body? Arlen Specter would like a reasonable answer to that last question too. I fear he'll never get it. Because no such reasonable answer exists. http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

Something that conspiracy zealots like DiEugenio always totally ignore when discussing the issue of the Single-Bullet Theory is Warren Commission Exhibit 903, which is a photo that proves for all time that the Warren Commission (including Mr. Ford) did not need JFK's upper-back wound to be "moved" up into the neck of the President. And the above statement is a fact regardless of any changing of the wording associated with the location of the back wound that was done by Gerald Ford. CE903 has the wound in the UPPER BACK, not the "neck". And, furthermore, any "raising" of the wound up into the neck wouldn't have strengthened the WC's SBT, it would have destroyed it. I wonder why more CTers haven't figured this one out yet? I guess they're still too much in love with the idea that Gerry Ford did something sinister and underhanded, even though by taking just one quick glance at CE903, we can see that the SBT works perfectly with the wound just where it is in the autopsy photo -- the upper back, not the neck. And, yes, I have seen the "opposite angle" pictures of Specter holding his pointer too, and have commented on those pictures HERE. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

Thank you, Chris Bennett, for posting the motorcade photo above. I noted it's a higher-resolution version than the one I had on my Kennedy Photos site. So I've replaced the old one with the better-quality one. Much obliged. And for the anti-SBTers, please note the "inboard" status of Governor Connally in the photo:

In 2011, Gary Mack provided this information regarding the picture: "I receive a phone call or email at least once a month from someone else who has that picture and claims they or a relative took it. The picture was actually shot by the house photographer of the Adolphus Hotel from their Main Street balcony. His name, which was stamped on the back of original prints, was Francis, if I remember correctly. Many copies were sold by the hotel and others and the original negative's whereabouts is unknown, even to the hotel (which is under different ownership now)." -- Gary Mack

Clint Hill is on the bumper. The photo was taken in front of the Adolphus Hotel on Main Street. More info: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/da2cf9d569af4176 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/limo_motorcade.htm

The above statement by Don Jeffries is nearly as absurd as this one by the late conspiracy icon Mr. Weisberg. This question that I posed yesterday is worth repeating again today -- Why do so many conspiracy theorists fight the "Oswald Did It" evidence so vigorously? The only possible way to make Oswald an "innocent patsy" is to either totally ignore the evidence against him (for two murders, not just one)...or for the CTers to fall back on the lame claim of "All the evidence is fake". Because the only way that Oswald can be innocent of killing both JFK & Tippit is for all of the evidence to be manufactured. And just exactly how likely is that (even in a CTer dream world)?

Don, Why not just accept the obvious fact that Oswald killed Kennedy? The looming question that I'd like to have answered is this one -- Why do so many conspiracy theorists fight the "Oswald Did It" evidence so vigorously? The only possible way to make Oswald an "innocent patsy" is to either totally ignore the evidence against him (for two murders, not just one)...or for the CTers to fall back on the lame claim of "All the evidence is fake". Because the only way that Oswald can be innocent of killing both JFK & Tippit is for all of the evidence to be manufactured. And just exactly how likely is that (even in a CTer dream world)?

Bill, The Dallas conference I linked to took place at SMU, not the TSBD.

DVP Video-Audio Archive / Journalists Remember 11-22-63

JFK Archives/Mystery Deaths Also see Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History", pages 1012-1020. "The vast majority of the witnesses on the various mysterious-death lists of the conspiracy theorists (e.g., Jim Marrs's book Crossfire lists 104 witnesses) weren't connected with the case in any known way whatsoever, and had absolutely nothing of any known value to say about the case. .... But of those who did have a connection -- such as Roger Craig, Earlene Roberts, Lee Bowers, and Buddy Walthers -- all of them, without exception, had already told their story, most of them on the public record, so what could possibly be achieved by killing them?" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1018 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

I agree.

....